This patent back biting is getting old. I have bought two Samsung Tabs, not because they have anything copied from Apple. I bought them specifically because they AREN'T Apple. If I want to be locked down into an ultra-proprietary hidden code base, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'll keep buying Samsung until I find something better. Still, I gotta say, with all this thermonuclear lawsuit warfare, the chances that I'll ever own anything made by Apple have dwindled to almost nil.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

I just hope the jury has some technical and legal inclination. And are not biased or a "fanboy" of either product. I would imagine one of the questions while selecting the jury is "do you or a household member own an Apple or Samsung device?" When I see jury members on tv after a big trial and hear them speak and how they came to their decision scares the shit out of me. If I am ever falsely accused my odds with a jury of my "peers" is significantly low. It was a great concept 200 years ago, but now it is scarier and scarier. You usually end up with 12 people who have no background in the area of the cases content. The lawmakers and politicians do this same thing and you see how that is going. Unfortunately I don't have a viable alternative if my own..yet ..to submit.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

I think the judge is trying to tell the jury to stop thinking about whether or not there was infringement or why the infringement occurred. That has already been covered previously and exhaustively. The Jury needs to move on to other things, specifically the amount of damages.

Under US patent law, the patent holder is "entitled to the larger of either a reasonable royalty or lost profits that result from infringement of their patent"*. In this case, the latter is the larger one and that is what they need to calculate. The details they are asking for are completely irrelevant to deciding how much profit each company would have gained if the other had not infringed on the relevant patents.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

I think the judge is trying to tell the jury to stop thinking about whether or not there was infringement or why the infringement occurred. That has already been covered previously and exhaustively. The Jury needs to move on to other things, specifically the amount of damages.

Under US patent law, the patent holder is "entitled to the larger of either a reasonable royalty or lost profits that result from infringement of their patent"*. In this case, the latter is the larger one and that is what they need to calculate. The details they are asking for are completely irrelevant to deciding how much profit each company would have gained if the other had not infringed on the relevant patents.

You misunderstand the condition and circumstance of this trial; it is separate from the previous one and deals with a different group of products. The question of whether infringement occurred must be answered all over again.

I just hope the jury has some technical and legal inclination. And are not biased or a "fanboy" of either product. I would imagine one of the questions while selecting the jury is "do you or a household member own an Apple or Samsung device?" When I see jury members on tv after a big trial and hear them speak and how they came to their decision scares the shit out of me. If I am ever falsely accused my odds with a jury of my "peers" is significantly low. It was a great concept 200 years ago, but now it is scarier and scarier. You usually end up with 12 people who have no background in the area of the cases content. The lawmakers and politicians do this same thing and you see how that is going. Unfortunately I don't have a viable alternative if my own..yet ..to submit.

Every time I get called for jury duty it's a day (or more!) of my time I will never get back. Most judges will ask prospective jurors to fill out a brief questionnaire that theoretically flags you as "of concern" to both prosecutor and defense counsel. I always feel so silly when like 3/4 of the boxes are checked on my form.

With that said, the system is actually pretty good at assuring that while the entire jury may not be what you, as a biased party, consider your "peers" if your defense counselor isn't literally the worst lawyer ever you should have a jury that's about 33 to 50% favorable to you right out of the gate.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Since they each contend that the other owes them something for infringement, I'd like to see the judge order each to pay, say, $2 billion to the other and let's call it a day. These patent cases are a lot less interesting to me than patent reform, which is the real story in my opinion.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

They're asking a specific question regarding the nature of evidence that may or may not be in possession of the Court. I don't know off the top of my head if California is one of the states that allows juries to take exhibits into deliberation with them. If it's not, this hands Samsung's legal team cause for appeal (which would be another rather egregious sign that Judge Koh is either ill-equipped to be a judge or derelict in her duties) because juries very much have the right to ask judges about evidence while in deliberation.

Seems like the juror is way too focused on intent as it regards to both sides as opposed to actions

As for someone above saying the judge should direct them to evidence... These questions seen inappropriate. It is the job of the jury to go over the evidence and apply it. The judge controls access to evidence during the trial. it would be absolutely prejudicial for a judge to essentially do the juror's job for them and condense the evidence down to answer these inquiries.

Lawyers for both sides are likely concerned because it seems like the jury is really confused and not even sure what they should be doing it or how they should be doing it.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Yes this would be like a jury in a murder trial asking a judge if there is evidence the defendant committed murder. Certainly the judge would be capable of answering this but it would be absolutely inappropriate.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Not in the way they asked. They were asking for the judge to interpret the evidence and regurgitate it to them.

It is one thing to ask "are there any letters or emails from Steve Jobs on xyz date" and "what was Steve jobs thinking about google."

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Not in the way they asked. They were asking for the judge to interpret the evidence and regurgitate it to them.

It is one thing to ask "are there any letters or emails from Steve Jobs on xyz date" and "what was Steve jobs thinking about google."

They specified a conceptual date and asked what was said. What is said would be fact and not interpretation.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Not in the way they asked. They were asking for the judge to interpret the evidence and regurgitate it to them.

It is one thing to ask "are there any letters or emails from Steve Jobs on xyz date" and "what was Steve jobs thinking about google."

The questions all look like things that can be answered either yes or no. Every single one starts with "Is there any evidence available to us..." Her answer saying no additional evidence can be supplemented now seems weird in that light. Why didn't she just say "No, that question was not answered by the evidence presented in the trial."? Or "Yes, see exhibit XX for full details."?

Funny, can the jury ask any questions during the trial? Seems like they can't.

Just goes to show you, the one who wins is the lawyer who put on a better show.

The jury can ask any question they want. But I've never heard of judges actually giving jurors useful or interesting information in response to such a question. Unless it's a simple thing like "What does jury instruction X mean?", many of these questions boil down to either "We want more evidence" or "Please decide the entire trial for us."

You can bet that asking $6M for 2 patent infringments is meant to scale down the credibility of $2.2B for 5 patent infringements. Nevermind the count of infringing devices on either side, this $6M number sounds like asking the jury to award $3M per patent to either side. More psychological strategy than accurate accounting.

This patent back biting is getting old. I have bought two Samsung Tabs, not because they have anything copied from Apple. I bought them specifically because they AREN'T Apple. If I want to be locked down into an ultra-proprietary hidden code base, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'll keep buying Samsung until I find something better. Still, I gotta say, with all this thermonuclear lawsuit warfare, the chances that I'll ever own anything made by Apple have dwindled to almost nil.

I down voted this, not because I don't like Android, but because Samsung is cheap crap. They dont make quality products, and add insult to injury by loading crappy Samsung apps.

Possibly, but both sides presented all the evidence they wanted during the trial and it's too late for new evidence now.

In point of fact, they almost certainly only presented evidence they were allowed to present. Judges often exclude certain evidence as being prejudicial.

Isn't the entire point of evidence is to be prejudicial?

Sure, but it has to be relevant to some degree - take their first question for example. What Jobs did or didn't say about Samsung/Google etc (even in relation to patents, he was hardly an expert) doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with whether Samsung are infringing anything or said patents are valid.

This patent back biting is getting old. I have bought two Samsung Tabs, not because they have anything copied from Apple. I bought them specifically because they AREN'T Apple. If I want to be locked down into an ultra-proprietary hidden code base, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'll keep buying Samsung until I find something better. Still, I gotta say, with all this thermonuclear lawsuit warfare, the chances that I'll ever own anything made by Apple have dwindled to almost nil.

I down voted this, not because I don't like Android, but because Samsung is cheap crap.

I down voted this, not because I don't like you, but because you stated your opinion as fact.

This raises a very interesting question: Why can't the jury ask questions during the trial? It is their job, after all, to come to a conclusion. So if they feel they need more detail, shouldn't they be allowed to ask it? After all, in civil cases Judges are allowed to ask as much information as they desire so as to come to a decision.

The fact that trials play out like a movie, specifically crafted to make you think and feel a certain way, with no input, at all, from those making the final decision is starting to seem a bit archaic. It's starting to seem like it comes from a time when the average citizen was not considered literate, or well-educated. That is simply not the case today, and it just seems strange that juries are forced to make a decision without being able to ask questions. Especially when you connect this article to the one about the number of innocents on death row...

Seems like the juror is way too focused on intent as it regards to both sides as opposed to actions

As for someone above saying the judge should direct them to evidence... These questions seen inappropriate. It is the job of the jury to go over the evidence and apply it. The judge controls access to evidence during the trial. it would be absolutely prejudicial for a judge to essentially do the juror's job for them and condense the evidence down to answer these inquiries.

Lawyers for both sides are likely concerned because it seems like the jury is really confused and not even sure what they should be doing it or how they should be doing it.

Interesting you should say that, since part of Samsung's testimony was a directive to the jurors to "ignore the patent office." In other words, to question the validity of said patents themselves. It's a strange way of doing business, legally the patents need to be enforced, but the jury has the final verdict, so really they have the power to effectively say "these patents are bullshit."

Apparently, the theory is that Samsung has counter-sued Apple for Fair Return and Non-Discriminatory or FRAND patents, which are usually involved in standardised technology (such as USB, Bluetooth etc.) Apple is suing over a mixture of hardware and software patents (IIRC, this is the suit with 'swipe to unlock', which has been around since the days of the Palm Pilots, before even the iPod).

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

They're asking a specific question regarding the nature of evidence that may or may not be in possession of the Court. I don't know off the top of my head if California is one of the states that allows juries to take exhibits into deliberation with them. If it's not, this hands Samsung's legal team cause for appeal (which would be another rather egregious sign that Judge Koh is either ill-equipped to be a judge or derelict in her duties) because juries very much have the right to ask judges about evidence while in deliberation.

Well, they can ask whatever they want. But the judge will refuse to do anything that involves the judge having to interpret evidence for them. Asking the judge a question like "does evidence of the following exist..." Is asking the judge to interpret evidence. It is up to the jury to decide if any evidence presented could be considered "evidence of the following...", not the judge. This is fundamental to the concept of the jury trial. The jury, not the judge, is the one who decides what the presented evidence means.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Not in the way they asked. They were asking for the judge to interpret the evidence and regurgitate it to them.

It is one thing to ask "are there any letters or emails from Steve Jobs on xyz date" and "what was Steve jobs thinking about google."

The questions all look like things that can be answered either yes or no. Every single one starts with "Is there any evidence available to us..." Her answer saying no additional evidence can be supplemented now seems weird in that light. Why didn't she just say "No, that question was not answered by the evidence presented in the trial."? Or "Yes, see exhibit XX for full details."?

It doesn't matter the format of the question. The jury is presented certain evidence. It is not appropriate for the judge to subsequently interpret the evidence for the jury. And even "evidence of this was/wasn't presented" represents interpretation, as it is the jury, not the judge who decides, for instance, whether a particular piece of evidence actually answers a specific question or not.

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Not in the way they asked. They were asking for the judge to interpret the evidence and regurgitate it to them.

It is one thing to ask "are there any letters or emails from Steve Jobs on xyz date" and "what was Steve jobs thinking about google."

They specified a conceptual date and asked what was said. What is said would be fact and not interpretation.

What was said on that date is either in evidence or not in evidence. Either way, the judge should have nothing more to say about it than "you've been presented all the evidence. It is your job to interpret it." Anything else is potentially prejudicial and undermines the carefully constructed trial process (where, for instance, judges are not supposed to be calling special attention to any one piece of evidence, even if requested by the jury).

The notes were all written by the same juror; presumably the juror they elected to be secretary.

I'm not sure Judge Koh actually answers the questions, though. They're not asking for new evidence (which they can't get), they're asking whether these questions can be addressed by evidence on file with the court. Which is an entirely different issue and one the Judge ought to have taken more time and effort in addressing. She should have her own notes regarding the presented evidence, just as the jurors ought to, but given the amount of information being thrown at them I wouldn't be surprised if their notes have stopped making sense to them.

The judge isn't supposed to be interpreting evidence for the jurors. Either their questions are asking for more evidence, which the court isn't supposed to allow at this point, or their questions are asking for the court to interpret the existing evidence for them, which the court isn't supposed to do.

Not in the way they asked. They were asking for the judge to interpret the evidence and regurgitate it to them.

It is one thing to ask "are there any letters or emails from Steve Jobs on xyz date" and "what was Steve jobs thinking about google."

The questions all look like things that can be answered either yes or no. Every single one starts with "Is there any evidence available to us..." Her answer saying no additional evidence can be supplemented now seems weird in that light. Why didn't she just say "No, that question was not answered by the evidence presented in the trial."? Or "Yes, see exhibit XX for full details."?

It doesn't matter the format of the question. The jury is presented certain evidence. It is not appropriate for the judge to subsequently interpret the evidence for the jury. And even "evidence of this was/wasn't presented" represents interpretation, as it is the jury, not the judge who decides, for instance, whether a particular piece of evidence actually answers a specific question or not.

Exactly. It is the juries responsibility to decide what the evidence means. The judge's job ends at what is allowed to be put forth to the jury. A judge deciding what documents are relevant to Steve Jobs state of mind before filing suit would be ridiculously inappropriate. As you said any answer would prejudice the jury.

The jury has heard the evidence it is up to them to decide what it means. The judge is there to answer questions on legal issues not to help the jury sift through evidence.

It is scary that the jury has asked these questions as it means people who don't know what they are doing fill every seat or at least, for now, are in control of the room enough to send these questions to the judge.

This patent back biting is getting old. I have bought two Samsung Tabs, not because they have anything copied from Apple. I bought them specifically because they AREN'T Apple. If I want to be locked down into an ultra-proprietary hidden code base, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'll keep buying Samsung until I find something better. Still, I gotta say, with all this thermonuclear lawsuit warfare, the chances that I'll ever own anything made by Apple have dwindled to almost nil.

You're missing the point , this case isn't about iPas vs Galaxy tab, it's about the first Galaxy devices vs the iPhone . I'm by no means an Apple fan but there is a lot to suggest that Samsung went out of their way to ripoff the iPhone .

I remember a friend of mine getting one of the first Galaxys and the first thing she told me was "look I bought a Samsung , looks just like an iPhone , just cheaper "

Overtime , Samsung has found their path and are making more original devices but its hard to argue that they didn't ride back on iPhone success.

This raises a very interesting question: Why can't the jury ask questions during the trial? It is their job, after all, to come to a conclusion. So if they feel they need more detail, shouldn't they be allowed to ask it? After all, in civil cases Judges are allowed to ask as much information as they desire so as to come to a decision.

The fact that trials play out like a movie, specifically crafted to make you think and feel a certain way, with no input, at all, from those making the final decision is starting to seem a bit archaic. It's starting to seem like it comes from a time when the average citizen was not considered literate, or well-educated. That is simply not the case today, and it just seems strange that juries are forced to make a decision without being able to ask questions. Especially when you connect this article to the one about the number of innocents on death row...

The biggest reason it is the judge's primary job to determine how and what evidence gets presented. It would become exponentially more difficult for a judge to control that process with jurors questioning counsel and witnesses.

In grand jury hearings the jurors do get to ask questions but the differences between a grand jury proceeding and a trial are significant.